Uttarakhand High Court
C482/2204/2019 on 17 March, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
C482 No.2204 of 2019
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Ram Singh Sammal, learned
counsel along with Ms. Sarita Bisht,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
The controversy had arisen from the
issuance of the Cheque No.000040 dated
03.10.2018, which was said to have been
issued by the applicant for an amount of
Rs.3,20,000/-. It is alleged, that when the
said cheque was placed for its
encashment, the same dishonoured by the
Bank which had resulted into the
initiation of the proceedings of registration
of a complaint case under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, which
stood instituted on 14.12.2018.
The learned counsel for the applicant
doubts the propriety of proceedings under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, itself on the
ground that the entirety of the allegations
levelled in the proceedings under Section
138 of the N.I. Act are not sustainable
because, according to him, he too has
registered a complaint before the police
authority on 18.09.2017 referring therein
that an ATM Card bearing
No.6071970001216600 and a blank
signed cheque which was issued from his
bank account being Cheque No.000040 in
the complaint was found lost which is said
to have been registered by the applicant
before the police authority on 18.09.2017,
it only gives reference to the cheque
number and the account from which it
was issued.
The information with regards to the
submission of the said complaint before
the police authority was sought by the
applicant and the same was supplied to
him under the Right to Information Act in
March, 2019, thereby fortifying the fact of
submitting the complaint on 18.09.2017.
On issuance of the summoning order
in the complaint proceedings as instituted
on 14.12.2018, by way of a Criminal
Complaint Case No.18 of 2018, the
summoning order was issued against the
present applicant on 02.01.2019. In the
summoning order thus issued, the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Tanakpur, District Champawat, has
observed that the cheque which was
issued being Cheque No.000040 for an
amount of Rs.3,20,000/- it had a date
mentioned therein as to be 03.10.2018.
Hence, while upholding the notices issued
in the complaint proceedings by the
respondent, on account of dishonour of
cheque, the summoning order was
observed to be justified by invoking the
provisions contained under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act.
The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that being aggrieved against the
said order he has preferred a revision
being Criminal Revision No.5 of 2019,
"Shabbir Ahmed Vs. Mohd. Salim
Kureshi", which was too dismissed by the
Revisional Court on 28.08.2019.
The Revisional Court has observed
that the defence taken by the applicant
about the theory of missing Cheque
No.000040 for an amount of
Rs.3,20,000/-is not acceptable for the
reason being, that when he has filed the
complaint on 18.09.2017 a complaint
which was filed well prior in time could
not have referred to the date of the cheque
to be 03.10.2018 and, hence, the
registration of complaint on 18.09.2017
itself was found to be doubtful because it
referred to a cheque of subsequent date
03.10.2018.
Accordingly, the Revisional Court too
while making its observation in paragraph
no.7 of the judgment, has observed that
the date referred to in the cheque as
03.10.2018, which was subsequent to the
complaint registered by the applicant with
the police complaint authority on
18.09.2017, the stand taken by the
applicant with regard to his defence of
having lost the cheque is not sustainable
because in a prior instituted complaint he
cannot refer to a subsequent cheque
which is said to have been issued and
lost.
After having heard the learned
counsel for the applicant and the learned
counsel for the respondent since the
entire story of the learned counsel for the
applicant is pivoting around the complaint
registered on 18.09.2017 before the police
authority which was ultimately
scrutinized to be found to be wrong
because of the fact already narrated above
and since the same has been reiterated by
the Revisional Court by dismissing the
revision, that no sanctity could be
attached to the complaint of 18.09.2017
said to have been submitted by the
present applicant, in his defence of losing
of a cheque is not acceptable by this Court
too in view of the observations made by
the summoning order as well as
subsequent Revisional Court's order by
clearly dealing with the facts which has
been referred in Paragraph no.7 of the
said judgment.
In view of the above, since it is
absolutely concocted story which has been
sought to be narrated by the complaint of
18.09.2017 with regard to the aspect of
missing cheque which was issued
subsequently on 03.10.2018, the stand
taken by the applicant in his C-482
application is not sustainable and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the dismissal of the C-482
application would be with a liberty
reserved for the applicant to resort to
recourse provided to him by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgment of Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation as reported in 2022 (10)
SCC 51.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
17.03.2023
Sukhbant
